Skip to main content

Full text of "WHAT ANARCHY ISN’ T by Larken Rose"

See other formats


WHAT ANARCHY ISN’T 


[ 

I illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


Written by Larken Rose 
Illustrations by Poxodd 



Many people, when they hear the word "anarchy/' think of chaos 
and mayhem. And they therefore assume that anyone who calls 
himself an "anarchist" must be in favor of disorder and violence. 
But that is the complete opposite of the truth. 


[ 

[ illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


Just as the word "monarchy" means "rule by one person," the 
word "anarchy" literally just means, "rule by no one." But even 
that idea—the idea of a society without a government—makes 
some people imagine a primitive, savage type of existence, full of 
violent conflict, and without compassion or organization. But that 
too is a completely inaccurate picture of what anarchists want. 


- 1 - 



In fact, most objections and complaints about anarchism are the 
result of people misunderstanding what the philosophy is all 
about. The truth is, most people who are scared of "anarchy" are 
scared of things that anarchists don't want and don't advocate. 


[ 

[ illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


In order to correct such misunderstandings, we will consider the 
example of two fictional islands: Authoritania, where there is a 
ruling class or government; and Anarchia , where there is no ruling 
class of any kind. This will be used to illustrate what "anarchy" 
and "anarchism" actually mean, and especially what they do not 
mean. 


- 2 - 



One common misconception about anarchy is that it means 
"every man for himself" or "survival of the fittest," where 
everyone has to be selfish and self-sufficient, where people don't 
cooperate with each other, where there is little or no organization, 
and where people all behave like violent, selfish animals. 


[ 

| illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


This comes from the false assumption that without government, 
there can be no order or structure to society—that without some 
sort of governing political body, people couldn't and wouldn't 
find ways to get along, cooperate and organize. 


- 3 - 



But in reality, government is never about true cooperation . 
Whether it is a republic, a democracy, a dictatorship, or some 
other form, government always constitutes a ruling class which 
gives commands called "laws," and uses violence to punish anyone 
who disobeys. That is not cooperation . That is domination. It is one 
group forcing its will on everyone else, and forcing them to obey. 


[ 

1 illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


Government forces people to fund its ideas by way of "taxation," 
and forces people to cooperate with its plans by way of 
"regulation" and "legislation." Ultimately, both are enforced by 
men with guns. 


- 4 - 



In contrast, true cooperation is about people voluntarily working 
together, of their own free will, without anyone else forcing them 
to. And people already do this, in thousands of different ways 
every day, without politicians or "law enforcers" making it 
happen. So no, obviously cooperation does not require the 
existence of political power. 


[ 

1 illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


And while it is true that authoritarianism and government power 
can be used to force people into various forms of organization. 
that does not mean that people are incapable of organizing 
without being forced, which they obviously already do, in many 
different ways. 


- 5 - 



In fact, the most productive examples of organization are already 
anarchistic in nature. Consider, for example, your favorite grocery 
store. Everyone involved in the hugely complex operation of 
growing, processing, transporting, displaying and selling food, 
participates voluntarily. 


[ 

| illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


Customers choose where to shop and what to buy, and all the 
other people involved—truck-drivers, stock boys, check-out 
clerks, administrators, etc.—do what they do in exchange for 
getting paid. This purely voluntary arrangement allows for an 
amazingly complex degree of organization and cooperation 
without anyone being forced to participate. This is literally anarchy 
in action. 


- 6 - 



In contrast, whenever government does something, a very small 
group of people (politicians) comes up with an idea, and forces 
everyone else to go along with it. In the authoritarian version of a 
supermarket, the ruling class would tell people what to produce 
and how much, and would tell customers what they must buy 
and what they must pay for it. Anyone who did not comply 
would be punished in some way. That is always how government 
does things. 


[ 

[ illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


(Some anarchists prefer the term "voluntaryism" because their 
philosophy is based on the idea that all human behavior should 
be based upon voluntary interaction, not violence.) 


- 7 - 



Another common but incorrect assumption is that if there were no 
government, people would have no way to defend against 
criminals or foreign invaders. But one does not need a badge or 
special "authority" to have the right to defend himself, or others, 
against attackers and thieves. 


[ 

| illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


Everyone already has the right to use defensive force, by himself or 
with others for mutual protection. Anarchy means no one has the 
right to rule (i.e., no one has special rights); it doesn't mean people 
can't get together to exercise rights that everyone already has. In a 
stateless society, even profession protectors would only have the 
same rights as everyone else. 


- 8 - 



Another concern that some people have is that, if there wasn't a 
government, then smaller, private gangs would spring up to rob, 
oppress and enslave people. There are a couple reasons this fear is 
misguided. 


[ 

f illustration 
[ 


] 

] 

] 


First of all, even private street gangs and organized crime today 
exist mainly because of government, not in spite of it. Notice how 
many gangs today get their funding from trading in illegal "black 
markets"—drugs, gambling, prostitution, guns, etc.—which were 
all created by government "laws." In a free society, thugs and 
thieves—individually or in gangs—wouldn't have any "black 
markets" to take over. 


- 9 - 



More importantly, people who fear "warlords taking over" if 
there were no government are ignoring how much people's 
perceptions matter. A criminal gang that everyone recognizes as 
illegitimate and immoral has far less power than a gang whose 
aggression is perceived to be legitimate and "legal"—its 
commands and demands being called "laws" and "taxes," and 
any who disobey being seen as "criminals." 


[ 

1 illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


In other words, a population is far more likely to be oppressed by 
a gang which the people themselves image to have the right to 
rule, than by some gang that everyone knows is bad, and that 
everyone would feel perfectly justified in disobeying and 
resisting, even forcibly. 


- 10 - 



Imagine a private gang trying to do what government now does 
—extorting and bossing everyone around—but imagine if they 
tried it without any aura of legal authority. Then imagine how a 
well-armed population would respond. The gang would fail, 
quickly and dramatically, and all those who resisted them would 
be viewed as righteous heroes. 


[ 

| illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


But when the people feel morally obligated to obey the politicians' 
"laws," any who resist are viewed as "criminals" or "tax-cheats," 
even by their own friends and neighbors. Most people see 
government domination as necessary and valid, and so they 
cooperate with their own victimization. 


- 11 - 



That is why government gets away with far more oppression and 
extortion than private gangs ever could: because most of the 
victims of "legal" aggression and theft see it as necessary and 
legitimate. Millions of people tolerate the confiscation of a huge 
portion of their earnings, and tolerate having many of their 
choices and behaviors forcibly limited and controlled by way of 
"legislation," as long as the people giving the orders are seen as a 
legitimate political authority. 


[ 

[ illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


But in a situation where the people don't accept the idea that 
someone else has the moral right to rob them and rule them, the 
people stop cooperating, and start resisting. 


- 12 - 



This is why the presence of government drastically increases the 
chances of people getting robbed—in fact, increases the chances 
to 100%, since every government "taxes" the people it claims to 
represent—while the lack of an authoritarian ruling class makes 
the people far less susceptible to being extorted and dominated, 
and far more likely to disobey and resist any would-be thieves 
and thugs. 


[ 

1 illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


To put it another way, warlords already did take over, called 
themselves "government," and convinced their victims that it was 
righteous and necessary for the warlords to dominate and exploit 
everyone else, "for their own good." 


- 13 - 



Relying on government to prevent theft and oppression is 
completely ridiculous, since government is the biggest thug and 
thief there is, confiscating far more wealth than all other crooks 
and criminals combined. 


[ ] 

[ illustration ] 

[ ] 

And government "protection" is always hypocritical. 
Government "law enforcers" may sometimes find and lock up 
some private thugs and thieves, but every government also 
commits "legalized" theft and extortion itself, and calls it 
"taxation," while insisting that it needs to do that in order to 
protect the people from theft and extortion. As patently absurd as 
that is, most people still accept it without question. 


- 14 - 



When someone first considers the idea of a stateless society, he 
may also worry that the people who are truly malicious, 
destructive and sociopathic (and there are such people in the 
world) would be free to do anything they wanted, with no one to 
stop them. But this concern is again based on a basic 
misunderstanding of human nature. 


[ 

1 illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


People who are willing to victimize others, by their very nature, 
don't care about morality, or right and wrong. They don't care if 
what they are doing is right, and they also don't care if what they 
are doing is legal. They care only whether they can get away with 
harming others. 


- 15 - 



In some instances, a would-be crook or thug might be deterred or 
stopped by force (or by the threat of force) whether by someone 
with a badge, or by someone without one. But what makes this 
deterrence work is not the legislation or the official badges, but 
the simple threat of harm to the sociopath. 


[ 

| illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


A sociopath doesn't care about laws or social rules; he cares only 
about avoiding pain and hardship for himself. And that is true 
regardless of whether government exists or not. It makes no 
difference whether the threat comes from the police, or another 
citizen, or even another criminal. 


- 16 - 



Discouraging nasty people from hurting others does not require 
special authority, only the ability to use defensive force. If the 
intended target of a would-be car-jacker pulls out a gun, it doesn't 
make any difference to the car-jacker whether that person has a 
badge or whether there's a "law" against taking people's cars. 


[ 

| illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


Without a ruling class, decent people would still have every 
incentive, and every ability, and every right to organize and 
cooperate to defend against thugs and thieves, and they wouldn't 
need any badge, any official title, any "legislation," or any special 
authority to do so. 


- 17 - 



Now, some people might assume that if people organize for 
mutual protection and defense, then that is government. But that 
is not at all the case. Political authority is not about people 
coming together to do something that everyone already has the 
right to do; political authority is about one group of people 
claiming the right to do things which normal people do not have 
the right to do, such as taxing and controlling everyone else. 


[ 

[ illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


Organized defense can be very effective without anyone claiming 
any special right to rule—in other words, without having 
“ authority" and without being government. 


- 18 - 



Even when there is government, there are still freelance thieves 
and thugs who are not deterred by the laws of the politicians 
anyway. But the ultimate irony is that, while so many people 
hope that government will protect them from common criminals, 
government itself always ends up being the biggest thug and thief 
around. 


[ 

| illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


To be blunt, creating a huge gang—one far too big and powerful 
for the average person to resist—and giving that gang societal 
permission to control and extort everyone else (by way of "law" 
and "taxes"), in the hopes that that gang will prevent theft and 
thuggery, is an absurd idea. 


- 19 - 



Another common objection to the idea of a stateless society (a 
world without government) is the notion that, if not for a group 
of law-makers telling the rest of us how to behave, we would all 
behave like stupid, irresponsible, violent animals. 


[ 

[ illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


This claim implies one of two things: either we normal people 
have no idea what is right and wrong unless and until politicians 
tell us, or the only reason we want to do the right thing and co¬ 
exist peacefully is because politicians command us to. A quick 
examination even just of your own motivations and behaviors will 
show you that neither of those things is actually true. 


- 20 - 



To argue that only government can make people behave in a 
civilized manner is particularly odd in a society where politicians 
are voted into power. If the people themselves have no moral code 
and no conscience, and are just stupid, violent animals, why does 
almost everyone want government to keep the peace and protect 
the innocent? 


[ 

| illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


Would a population of vicious, heartless, evil people try to elect 
good people to keep the evil people in line? Obviously not. 
Human goodness, and the desire for order and peace, already 
comes from the majority of the people, not from the law-makers 
they vote into office. 


-21 - 



The same holds true of everything government does. If people are 
so short-sighted and selfish that they can't be trusted to 
voluntarily organize and fund whatever they deem important, 
then how can those same people be trusted to decide who should 
be in power? The implication is that the average person can't be 
trusted to run his own life, but can be trusted to choose someone 
to run everyone else's lives. 


[ 

1 illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


To argue that government is necessary to keep society peaceful 
and civilized is to claim that normal people can't wait to commit 
evil, but also can't wait to vote for politicians who will force them 
do the right thing. 


- 22 - 



Contrary to what most of us were taught, government and 
politics are not a civilizing influence at all. Indeed, political 
authority is the arch enemy of peaceful coexistence. 


[ 

f illustration 
[ 


] 

] 

] 


People who would never personally rob their neighbors 
themselves constantly vote for the government to do it for them. 
People who would never dream of trying to control every detail 
of their neighbors' lives think it's just fine to ask politicians to do 
exactly that. The game of politics constantly encourages people to 
use the violence of the state to rob and control other people, 
without any risk or feeling of guilt for the one who votes for that 
to happen. 


- 23 - 



Government, rather than serving as a check against the 
imperfections of our nature, instead drastically amplifies our 
greed, resentment, irresponsibility and malice, by giving us a 
"legal," risk-free way to forcibly interfere with the lives and 
choices of our fellow man. In short, politics brings out the bully 
and meddling busy-body in everyone. 


[ 

1 illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


In contrast, without a ruling class, people wouldn't be forever 
asking "law-makers" to interfere with their neighbors' lives, and 
thugs and thieves wouldn't be able to deny responsibility for their 
evil deeds by claiming that they were "just following orders." 


- 24 - 



Throughout history, far more theft, assault, oppression and even 
murder has been committed by those acting on behalf of 
"authority" than by anybody else. Even basically good people, 
when they believe in government, condone things, and do things, 
which they know would be wrong if they did them on their own. 


[ 

| illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


Most people know that theft and assault are bad, but they 
imagine that controlling their neighbors and forcing them to pay 
for things they don't want is perfectly fine when done by way of 
the political process. Wrong becomes right when it's called 
"taxation," "legislation," "regulation" and "war." 


- 25 - 



Anarchists know better. They know that human society will never 
be perfect, but that it would be a whole lot better if evil deeds 
were committed only by genuinely nasty, sociopathic people, 
rather than being advocated and committed by many millions of 
basically good people who have been taught to believe that violent 
aggression is morally acceptable when it's called 'Taxation/' "law 
enforcement" and "national defense." 


[ 

[ illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


Using yourself as an example, how many things have you voted 
to have government do to your neighbors, that you know you 
would have no moral right to do to them yourself? 


- 26 - 



The fundamental principle of voluntaryism (a more specific term 
for anarchism) is very simple: it's wrong to initiate violence 
against any other person, regardless of badges, laws or alleged 
authority. The only time the use of force is justified is to defend 
against aggression. 


[ 

[ illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


The vast majority of people understand this on a personal level, 
but they've been taught that this basic rule of social living does 
not apply when it comes to the game of politics and government. 
Without shame or guilt, everyone who votes asks the ruling class to 
do things to his neighbors which he knows would be wrong if he 
did them himself. 


- 27 - 



Most people know how to get along, and want a peaceful and just 
society. Giving up the belief in government doesn't suddenly turn 
someone into a violent animals, because our morality doesn't 
come from legislation, and our ability to organize and cooperate 
doesn't come from any ruling class. 


[ 

| illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


Our ability, right, and desire to be productive, to help each other, 
to protect the innocent and stop the wicked, does not come from 
government. In fact, it is threatened by government more than by 
anything else. Indeed, most oppression and violent strife—most 
of man's inhumanity to man—is a direct result of authoritarian 
political power. 


- 28 - 



Contrary to what politicians pretend, ruling classes do not 
produce peaceful co-existence. Instead, they intentionally cause 
perpetual conflict and violence, exploiting our compassion, virtue 
and good intentions, and turning them into wealth and power for 
the worst people in the world, while crushing the freedom and 
prosperity of everyone else. 


[ 

| illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


Of course, the people who benefit most from the political racket 
will do their best to convince you that it's a social necessity. But 
ask yourself this: have the thousands of laws, regulations and 
taxes imposed on you made you a better, more productive and 
more caring person? 


- 29 - 



Is the world better off with the politicians taking your money and 
telling you how to live your life? Or would things be better if you 
were allowed to spend your own money and make your own 
decisions? Is society really best served by a small class of people 
forcibly imposing a centralized master plan on everyone else? 
Can the orders and threats of a ruling class make the world what 
it should be? Or would society be better served by freedom, a 
respect for individual rights, voluntary cooperation and peaceful 
organization? If this second option sounds better to you, maybe 
you should learn more about anarchism and voluntaryism. 


[ 

| illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


- 30 - 



People are not perfect, and some are downright malicious and 
dangerous. And some people mistakenly view anarchism as a 
utopian idea that would only work if everyone were generous 
and compassionate. But if people are too stupid, greedy and 
malicious to be free, aren't they also too stupid, greedy and 
malicious to be trusted with power? If you don't trust some 
stranger to have control over his own life, why would you ever 
trust him to have control over yours ? 


[ ] 

[ illustration ] 

[ ] 


Whether people are inherently good, bad, or some of each, giving 
a small group of people power and control over everyone else is 
never the answer. 


-31 - 



Many still insist, "We need government because people can't be 
trusted!" as if government is anything other than people (some of 
the worst people around, in fact). And many still believe that 
obedience to authority is what makes us civilized, when in reality, 
it does the opposite. Far more evil has been committed in the name 
of "law" and "authority" than has been committed in spite of it. 


[ 

1 illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


The ultimate irony is that most people are still desperately hoping 
to achieve a fair, just, free and prosperous society by way of the 
very institution that has been responsible for more theft, 
thuggery, extortion, terrorism, torture and murder than all others 
combined: "government." 


- 32 - 



Everyone knows that governments can be corrupt, abusive, 
inefficient, counter-productive, even tyrannical. But most people 
assume that, if only the right people were in charge, that would 
fix the problem. 


[ 

f illustration 
[ 


] 

] 

] 


But over and over again, regardless of who was in power, and 
regardless of the particular arrangement or structure of the 
political power—a democracy, a republic, a dictatorship, a 
collective, etc.—history has demonstrated that power corrupts, 
and that freedom is far more conducive to peace and prosperity 
than any political solution ever has been, ever could be, or ever 
will be. 


- 33 - 



People have spent centuries trying to create a good society using 
different kinds of ruling classes, different legal structures, 
different ways of choosing the rulers, and so on. But without 
exception, every authoritarian governmental construction has 
resulted in freedom and riches for a small few, and oppression, 
violence and poverty for others. 


[ 

1 illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


What if, instead of deciding what the throne should look like, and 
who should sit on it, all people of good-will embraced the non¬ 
aggression principle? What if, instead of looking to a ruling class 
to forcibly impose our values on society, we embraced the concept 
of self-ownership? 


- 34 - 



Anarchists want you to have complete control over your choices, 
your money, and your life. As long as you are not using force or 
fraud to inflict harm onto others, they want you to have absolute 
freedom. All they ask is that you treat them the same way. 


[ 

f illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


You own yourself. 

Your neighbor owns himself. 
Committing aggression is wrong. 


These principles are simple and obvious, to the point of being 
self-evident. And yet they are diametrically opposed to the 
authoritarian principles that most of us were taught. 


- 35 - 



At the end of the day, you need to choose which you want to 
advocate: peaceful coexistence among equals ("anarchism"), or 
authoritarian domination, with some ruling over everyone else 
("government"). The two are mutually exclusive. 


[ 

[ illustration 

[ 


] 

] 

] 


Despite what would-be rulers want to scare you into believing, 
anarchism does not mean chaos and violence, or every man for 
himself, and having no government does not mean having no 
morality, no organization and no cooperation. Simply put, 
anarchism means that no one is your master, and no one is your 
slave. And that's all it means. 


- 36 - 



[ inside back cover] 

For a more thorough understanding of why a stateless society— 
based upon voluntary cooperation and organization rather than 
government violence and authoritarian control—is the only moral 
or rational choice, read The Most Dangerous Superstition. 

I ] 

[ illustration ] 

[ ] 



[ back cover ] 


If you pay attention to the mainstream media, Hollywood movies, 
or the usual political pundits, then hearing the word "anarchist" 
probably makes you think of a gang of mask-wearing, bomb¬ 
throwing punks—angry, violent vandals doing whatever they can 
to destroy civilized society And these days, those who wield 
political power are going to great lengths—including by making 
up stories and instigating conflicts—to demonize and 
mischaracterize what "anarchism" really means. The purpose of 
this little book is to counter the spin and misconceptions. 

Regardless of your age, education level, income level, or views on 
culture or religion, don't be too surprised if, after learning what 
"anarchy" actually means, you end up thinking, "Wait, that's 
exactly what I wantl"